However, this is where another aspect of this post must be
mentioned, and that is the role of social media, and I must thank everyone who
shared, liked, tweeted and retweeted the post on Facebook and Twitter.

It was on Twitter that Kevin Hague (@kevverage), the writer
of chokka blog (which has been doing its bit to refute the economic claims of
the SNP and pro-independence supporters) read the post, and with his following,
got the ball rolling on getting it shared and read by great numbers of people. Many
other individuals – some of whom I consider very good friends – also tweeted, retweeted, and shared the post around in the course of the last week, and along with this were
mostly positive and supportive comments for which I am extremely grateful.

Such comments came from people who are frustrated by the SNP
and its supporters in the media who attempt to the peddle the notion that a fully
fiscally autonomous Scotland could still benefit from fiscal transfers as part
of the United Kingdom, in order to cover for the fiscal gaps that would in all likelihood
be caused with the implementation of full fiscal autonomy (FFA).

This is part of an problem for the SNP & Co., which has
attempted to find ways to answer the difficult questions regarding FFA, as journalist
and commentator David Torrance pointed out in the The Scotsman last week.

First, they attempted to dismiss the fiscal gap of £7.6
billion and total deficit of £14 billion highlighted by the independent
Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) by claiming that such figures represented merely
a “snapshot” for one fiscal year. However, “there existed several such snapshots
all the way up to 2020” which if anything, showed the figures getting worse.

Then some members attempted to go another route where they
did not deny the existence of the gap and deficit, or play them down. Instead,
they spoke of how there would be a “fiscal framework” to accompany FFA – also known in
more emollient terms as “Home Rule” – in which Scotland would still benefit from
the pooling and sharing of resources within the UK, despite not having skin in
the game (because after all, not a pound of Scottish tax revenue would go the the UK Treasury).

In his column, Torrance points out that George Kerevan (a former executive and
columnist with The Scotsman, and now the SNP MP for East Lothian) was “quite
explicit” on this topic:

“For Scotland to accept fiscal autonomy without in-built
UK-wide fiscal balancing”, he wrote, “would be tantamount to economic suicide.”
All federal systems, added Kerevan, possessed “mechanisms for cross-subsidising
regions in economic need by regions in surplus”, thus to “deny” something
similar (ie the Barnett Formula) to a fiscally autonomous Scotland would in his
view “derail any move to Scottish Home Rule in the UK”.

Like Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald last week, Kerevan
states something that comes off as entirely reasonable and has truth in it, but
leaves out the critical detail that in federal systems, the constituent parts
are not fully fiscally autonomous, and indeed as Torrance adds, none have
claimed this constitutional/economic status within their respective
federations. To do so would be an act of stupidity and irresponsibility, not
only because it is not true, but more critically, because making such claims fatally
undermines the existence, purpose, and meaning of the federation.

Would the residents of New York, California, or Texas be
content with their money going to programs and services in Mississippi, Kentucky,
or West Virginia when those states claim full fiscal autonomy for themselves?
No, and such a set-up would break the shared compact between the states that
they agreed to when signing on to the Constitution of the United States, which provides Congress
with broad powers of federal taxation that apply to the residents and
businesses of all 50 states. Thus, the tax revenues that go to Washington come directly from the taxpayers throughout the Union, and is then spent throughout the Union.

But of course, the principle aim for the SNP – their raison
d’etere – remains breaking up the United Kingdom, and even though they may
talk about doing what’s in the best interest of the whole UK whilst Scotland
remains part of it, demanding FFA with continued mechanisms for fiscal
transfers is a sure-fire way to stoke up the kind of resentment that will drive
the rest of the UK to end the Union themselves – probably without a
referendum.

As I have said, this is probably what some Nationalists want
since they could not achieve their ends through the referendum last year. They may complain about Unionists attempting to give Scotland rope to “hang itself” should FFA be delivered without “in-built UK-wide fiscal balancing” in the hope
that it will force Scots to turn away from full independence.
But arguing for these things seems an odd way extol the sentiments of
solidarity – economic, political, and social – with the rest of UK, and indeed,
if it leads to the break-up of the UK, then I suspect that some Nationalists will
welcome it.

However as Torrance said, making the case for fiscal
transfers is a part of a series of intellectual contortions owing to the fact that the SNP
cannot concede the disadvantages of FFA, for doing so “would also be accepting
that independence (under which there would be no fiscal transfers) would leave
Scotland worse off.”

Even more confusingly, FFA is something that few on either
side actually want, but it is something from which the SNP – some of whose fervent
supporters (and even MP’s) believe was promised as part of “The Vow” (when it was not) – cannot afford
to even appear to be climbing down. The party certainly cannot afford to admit
that taxes would have to be raised substantially, lest it loses “Middle
Scotland”, who according to David Torrance in The Herald, are the source of its
“modern electoral support” with popular and easy policies such as the Council Tax freeze
and “free” university tuition, which disproportionately benefit the middle
classes, and which would almost inevitably come under pressure with the implementation
of FFA.

Thankfully, FFA was defeated in Parliament, but Scottish Finance Minister and Deputy First Minister John Swinney is once again attempting to “push” for this concept – with the SNP government in Holyrood
even submitting to Downing Street the powers it believes ought to be devolved
as a priority and with the aim of eventually attaining FFA. This is a variant
of what the SNP MP’s were attempting to do last week with an amendment that
would effectively allow Holyrood to choose what powers it wanted at a time when
it is most convenient (i.e., when oil prices are higher), so as to not scare
the horses, if you will.

At the end of the day however, if the people of Scotland
really want FFA, that’s totally within their prerogative, but not under a false prospectus which the SNP cannot deliver on – the premise that this is a form of
federalism in which the rest of the United Kingdom will continue along with
fiscal transfers to Scotland, even though Scotland’s residents would no longer directly
contribute to the UK Treasury like everyone else throughout the United Kingdom.

The SNP cannot have it both ways on FFA – its bastardized
version of federalism – and actual federalism which retains features that bind a
federation together, including a strong central government and federation-wide
taxation. Either Scotland is fully fiscally autonomous or it’s not, and the SNP
cannot have its cake and eat it too. They and their allies must be confronted on
this point at every turn, and they cannot be allowed to get away with passing
off FFA as federalism.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

On Sunday, I was reading Iain Macwhirter’s latest column in the Sunday Herald, which was focused on the issue of Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA)
for Scotland, and asserted that expressions of concern with regard to it
amounted to scaremongering and “demeaning Scotland”, along with the notion that
critics were being too negative about Scotland and its prospects.

Leaving to the side that there are genuine, valid, and
serious concerns about FFA and that such critics are skeptical of the policy because its potential adverse effects on Scotland, what caught my attention was how
Macwhirter described the proposed constitutional arrangement.

What the SNP (claims it) wants – and what Macwhirter appears
to be championing – is a system in which Scotland remains as part of the United Kingdom, but with every single pound in Scotland being
subject only to taxation levied by the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, which
means that the people of Scotland will no longer be directly contributing to
the UK Treasury. Holyrood would send some form of payment to cover for shared
services reserved to decisions at the UK level (defense and foreign affairs) and Scotland’s share of the UK national
debt, but this is not the same as Scottish residents and business joining with
their fellow British citizens in directly contributing to the maintenance of UK
via taxation that applies to all British citizens, regardless of where they
live.

This means that Scotland will cut itself off from its
financial links with the rest of the UK, and it will make Scotland independent
in all but name (which some unionists describe as independence through the back
door) but Macwhirter does not believe this to be the case because, as he
claims, this is a “form of federalism, so even with fiscal autonomy there would
be transfer payments to be negotiated as there are in all federal systems.”

The esteemed columnist and journalist makes this sound
reasonable because after all, Scotland would still be part of the United
Kingdom and “sending a subvention south” for the aforementioned common services
and debt payments. So Scotland should not be seen as contriving to have its
cake and eat it too, and therefore, Macwhirter believes that Scotland should be
entitled to “equalization payments.”

However, in the eyes of people in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, as
well as many Scots, this does give the appearance of wanting to have the
benefits of independence, but still wanting the financial backing of the rest
of the UK. Worse, it adds fuel to the ugly perception that Scotland “sponges
off” of taxpayers south of the Tweed. Under the current circumstances, Scotland
and Scottish taxpayers – by being part of the same tax system as everyone else
in the UK as a whole – contribute to the UK Treasury, as they have been doing
for centuries, and as such, are entitled to UK spending – including the block
grant via the Barnett Formula.

But by essentially going it alone financially, the
criticisms of Barnett and any other form of fiscal transfers to Scotland will
become sharper and louder than ever before – just as would Scottish
representation in the House of Commons would come under closer scrutiny.

But what about that “subvention” as Macwhirter describes it?
Wouldn’t it represent Scotland’s contribution to the UK’s coffers? Well, it
appears that such a payment would only cover the aforementioned services still
shared by Scotland and the rest of the UK, and therefore, money from the UK
Treasury would only be spent in Scotland in relation to those services. If the
“Scottish subvention” was strictly applied in such a way, it may mean that there
would be little prospect of fiscal transfers directly to Holyrood, much less a
fixed formula for an annual block grant.

Macwhirter attempts to defend this and makes the argument
for continued fiscal transfers on the basis that this is a “form of
federalism.” After all, the UK appears to be on the road to federalism, and in
federal systems, there are mechanisms for distributing wealth in order to provide
assistance to states and to equalize the balance between wealthier regions and
poorer ones.

However, this does not make sense because under the SNP’s
own proposals, Full Fiscal Autonomy means that every single pound of taxed
money in Scotland goes directly to Holyrood, and none of it goes directly to
the UK Treasury. Now, I admit that I’m not an expert on federalism or
government systems in general, for those are topics that I study as a hobby –
not a profession – and I also realize that federalism may mean many things to
different people. But coming from a federation and having a basic understanding
of major federal systems in other countries, I can say that Iain Macwhirter’s (and the
SNP’s) vision of federalism goes out of sync with federalism as I understand it.

In the United States, Germany, Australia, and Canada,
taxation is a joint responsibility between the federal government and the
federated (state/regional/provincial) governments, and the respective federal
governments of those countries have the ability to levy and collect taxes
throughout the entire federation. The federated governments within those
countries have their own powers of taxation, which sometimes parallel those of
the federal government, so that there may be federal and state taxes on income, corporate profits, consumption, and
other sources of revenue. In some circumstances, there are taxes that can only
be levied by the federal government, and taxes that can only be levied by the
state governments.

At the end of the day however, the federal systems I have
mentioned still feature some form of taxation levied by the central (federal)
government on all parts of the federation. The federated governments have
fiscal autonomy, but not full fiscal autonomy, which is to
say that those governments have the power to impose their own taxes on the
residents and businesses within their jurisdiction for the needs and purposes
of those areas. However, not every unit of taxable money goes to those
governments because (as part of a wider federation), its residents and
businesses are subject to some form of federal taxation, and so some of that
taxable money goes to the federal government for needs and purposes across the
entire federation (and this was already planned to be implemented under the Scotland Act 2012, and is to be greatly enhanced by the passage of another Scotland Act this year, which will give Holyrood full control over income tax rates in Scotland).

Among those needs and purposes include the mechanism that
the federal government uses to distribute money to specific parts of the
country – i.e., fiscal transfers from the federal government to the state
governments. Of the four federal countries mentioned here, Canada, Australia,
and Germany have programs that are explicitly designed to equalize the fiscal capacities
of the states/provinces within them, which invariably means making payments to
less wealthy areas or areas that need assistance in covering the cost of
providing public services.

The United States does not have a fixed mechanism for
achieving these ends, but some equalizing does occur when the federal
government provides funds for specific programs within the states, such as
education, food and nutrition, and health programs (like Medicaid). In addition, the federal
government spends money to assist states in the financing of large capital
projects, such as roads, bridges, and other forms of infrastructure. On
average, the 50 states receive nearly half of their revenue from the taxes they levy on their residents (which ranges from North Dakota at 65.7% to New Mexico at 36.4%), and just under a third comes from the federal government (ranging from Mississippi at 42.9% to Alaska at 22.4%)
through various programs and initiatives. The remainder comes from a mix of
interest earnings, service charges, royalties, and local government transfers.

So while the states are able to tap into their own tax base,
they do not have exclusive access to it because they share their individual tax
bases with that of whole United States, and this allows for money to be used to assist other states and the people that reside within them. While this does
not amount to the same thing as the Barnett formula or the equalization
payments found in other federations, it still amounts to a system into which
everyone pays and from which everyone benefits.

Regardless of how it’s done however, there is not a federal system I am aware of in which one part of the federation is not subject to some form of
federal taxation (like everyone else) – where that part of the country
effectively keeps all of the tax revenue raised within its borders, but then
expects that the rest of the country will continue on happily with
“equalization payments.” How is that possible when the taxpayers residing in
that area are no longer directly contributing to the central government?

It isn’t. What the nationalists and their supporters want
with regard to FFA is not federalism – at least not the way I have come to understand
it – and by going down this path, they are either living in a pipe dream where
they do have their cake and eat too, or (as many suspect) they are trying to
create conditions where the rest of the UK finally gives up on Scotland and the
Union altogether. At the very least, it is an admission that while Scotland can
get on as fiscally autonomous within the UK, it cannot continue with current
levels of spending without something plugging the gap – whether that means
cutting spending, increasing taxes, or benefiting from the financial assistance
of the rest of UK.

With regard to the Union itself, it is the nationalists and their supporters who are quite
negative about it. Throughout the referendum campaign and up to the present, it
has been common to read from a pro-independence columnist and/or tweeter who
talks about the UK as being a country in terminal decline, living in its past,
and having absolutely no hope for the future. Further, they characterize the UK
as being this horrendously dark and scary place that watches poor people suffer
with a smile on its face and hates immigrants, which does nothing but paint a
broad brush against the Union and makes unfair characterizations about the
people inhabiting it.

If only these people could join with their fellow British
citizens in moving forward and striving to understand one another, while
pushing on to build a better Britain – which naturally and quite critically
involves building a better Scotland. That should be the ideal as opposed to breaking apart.

Federalism – in the way the US, Germany,
Australia, or Canada exercise it – in my view can help to achieve this and
strengthen the Union. FFA – the SNP’s (and Macwhirter's) butchered and bastardized federalism – will
not, and thank God it has been defeated in the Commons.

Going forward, I hope to write further on federalism and how it is practiced in Germany, Canada, Australia, the United States, and perhaps others. In particular, I would like to shed light on how their tax systems work, as well as their mechanisms for fiscal transfers, and the amount of fiscal autonomy exercised by the federated governments, which helps to achieve a healthy balance between them and the federal government, and binds the country into one. If Britain can achieve something like this and the British people strive to make it work, Britain – in my ever humble opinion – shall endure.

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Ever since the advent of devolution to Scotland, Wales, and
Northern Ireland in the late 1990’s, there has not yet been an answer to the
infamous West Lothian Question, whereby MP’s from those areas cannot vote on
matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, or
Northern Irish Assembly, but can vote on such issues in the British Parliament
at Westminster – even though their own constituents are not directly affected.

Devolution of certain issues to those legislatures meant that such issues – like
health and education – were no longer issues of a UK-wide concern, and were now
effectively English issues being decided by the UK Parliament at Westminster –
including by Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish MP’s, despite English MP’s
having no such say over devolved matters in Scotland, Wales, and Northern
Ireland.

The West Lothian Question is so named because it was
brought up by Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP for West Lothian during the
parliamentary debates on devolution in the 1970’s. It was he who asked how such
a then-hypothetical situation could be sustained, and as such, he was a prominent
opponent of devolution because nobody could provide him with an answer to his
question.

Now with devolution entering a stage in which substantial
legislative and fiscal powers are set to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament
(in fulfillment of the Vow made towards the end of the independence referendum
campaign), there is an increasing need to answer Dalyell’s 40 year old
question.

Labour attempted to answer it by proposing regional devolution within England following the devolution it had established in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Tony Blair's government succeeded in a referendum to devolve power to Greater London, which involved the creation of the directly elected Mayor of London. However, the attempt to create a devolved assembly in North East England was so heavily defeated by the electorate of that region in a 2004 referendum, that the idea was shelved for all the other regions (bar London), and the government effectively kicked an answer to the WLQ into the long grass.

The answer that is now set to be pursued by the current
Conservative government of Prime Minister David Cameron appears to be English Votes for
English Laws (EVEL). This has been Conservative Party policy since devolution
came about, and it has different variants, but the gist of it is that the
Speaker of the House of Commons will determine which bills going through the
Commons are applicable only to England (or England and Wales), and therefore
require a majority of only English (or English and Welsh) MP’s to pass such
legislation. Some variants of EVEL call for an absolute “veto” in which
relevant MP’s will have the ultimate say over such legislation, regardless of
how other MP’s may vote. Others merely allow for those MP’s alone to vote at
the committee stage (where amendments can be made), whilst allowing the full
Commons to vote on the legislation at its final stage.

Either way, EVEL will likely mean some dilution in the voice
of Scottish MP’s in the British Parliament because it is simply becoming more
difficult to justify their votes on issues that do not affect their
constituents – issues which have essentially become English issues because of
devolution.

What’s ironic is that the Scottish National Party (SNP)
campaigned heavily at the last election on a platform of “making Scotland’s
voice heard” and “giving a louder voice for Scotland” at Westminster – as if to
say that Scotland never had a voice there, which is plainly ludicrous, as
Scotland as been sending MP’s to Parliament since the Union began in 1707.
(Here, they engage in the art form of conflating Scotland with the SNP.)

However, as an acquaintance of mine in Scotland – a
gentleman named Graeme – has said, devolution has “turned the hypothetical ‘West
Lothian Question’ into reality, creating a situation in which Scottish MPs were
voting on English affairs that English MPs no longer had any say over in
Scotland.” Furthermore, he adds that as devolution was being implemented during
the last Labour government (1997-2010), the UK had a Scot – Gordon Brown –
“representing a Scottish constituency [and] serving as Chancellor and then
Prime Minister formulating policies on health, education, policing, etc in
England that were no longer within the remit of the UK Government within
Scotland.”

Now with the recent extraordinary success of the SNP in
winning 56 of 59 Scottish seats in the Commons and the prospect of further
devolution (including the full devolution of setting income tax) to Holyrood,
the constitutional anomaly of the WLQ has become “unsustainable” and EVEL “has
more or less” become inevitable.

However, Joyce McMillan in The Scotsman disagrees with such
notions, and claims that for decades, Scotland has had to put up with “England’s
political preferences.” But this attempt to say that “karma’s a b****” with
regard to Scottish influence across the UK ignores the changes wrought by
devolution. It also ignores the idea that British general elections ought to be
about what the voters across the UK want, as opposed to attempting to break the
votes down by certain areas. However, even when you do this, what you find is
that since World War II, Scotland has gotten the government it wants more often than
not, and indeed on two occasions – in 1964 and 1974 – Scotland voted for and
got a Labour government, even though England voted Tory. In a democracy,
sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.

Nevertheless, devolution was brought about to address a
“democratic deficit” with regard to Scotland’s place within the Union, and to
lessen “English influence” on “Scottish affairs.” With this, logic follows that
some people in England may wish to lessen “Scottish influence” on “English
affairs.”

McMillan says this ignores the “brute fact” that the UK is
an asymmetrical union in which 85% of the population resides in one part of the
country – England, and that EVEL will shut Scotland out of critical decisions
that affect the UK as a whole – including Scotland.

Unionists such as Graeme are then oft to point out that this
is an admission that devolution – at the very least – is a flawed concept whose
architects failed to think through its implications on Scotland and the United
Kingdom as a whole, and its implementation in a piecemeal manner failed to engage the UK as a whole on constitutional matters.

They also contend that the asymmetry to which McMillan
refers did not exist before devolution, for with a single sovereign parliament
in London, all of the British people were represented by MP’s who could equally
participate in the parliamentary process in full without question. This allowed
for many Scots to take their rightful place in powerful and prominent positions
in government – defense secretaries, home secretaries, foreign secretaries,
chancellors of the Exchequer, and prime ministers – and representing the
interests of the UK as a whole (including Scotland).

Only after the high-charged and emotive rhetoric of “Tory
government’s we didn’t vote for” and “English laws imposed on Scotland” (especially
following the eleven years of Margaret Thatcher’s government – 1979-1990 – during which
Scotland repeatedly voted Labour, though the UK as a whole voted Conservative) followed
by devolution in 1999 did the fundamental nature of Scottish parliamentary representation
come under question – first with the cutting of Scotland’s MP’s from 72 to 59,
and now the proposals for EVEL.

McMillan claims that this is “largely designed to massage
the wounded pride of English Tory MPs by offering them a bump up the
pecking-order in the public-school politics of Westminster.” However, with the
West Lothian Question becoming a reality (as Tam Dalyell had warned), English MP’s – whatever their
political stripe – have a legitimate constitutional issue. By attempting to
solve one democratic deficit, another one was created in the process.

This is not to say that EVEL is the optimal response, but
after the clamor for “more powers” for the Scottish Parliament (including the
prospect of Full Fiscal Autonomy (FFA), where all taxes raised in Scotland would go
to Holyrood) should anyone be surprised?

But realistically, given the geographic reality, England
will never truly be free of Scottish influence, and Scotland will certainly
never be free of English influence.

Using veteran nationalist Paul Henderson Scott’s description
of Scotland’s relationship with England as that of being in bed with an
elephant – and the need to be free of the elephant, Kenny Farquharson wrote recently in The Times that this failed to “acknowledge basic
geography and economics.” Without the United Kingdom holding them together,
Scotland and England may well move to separate beds, but will still have to
share the same room – the same island, Great Britain. Being ten times the size
of Scotland, Farquharson notes that “England will always be our bigger, more
populous, more powerful neighbor” and what it does “politically, economically,
culturally — will always have a profound effect on us [in Scotland].”

In other words – despite what some
nationalists may want to believe – Scotland cannot ignore its big sister, the
elephant. Farquharson goes on to mention that Scotland’s exports within the UK
– to England, Northern Ireland, and Wales – amounted to £44.9 billion, which is
a considerable sum when one considers that Scottish exports to the rest of the
world combined was £22 billion (and less than half of this was with the
European Union).

Indeed, one of the flaws of
EVEL is how to know what issues can be classified as “English only” or “English
and Welsh only”, for even though a piece of paper may say that, members from
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland can also argue that because of England’s
size, legislation that legally applies only to England can (and will) have affects –
particularly financial – on the rest of the UK.

This is why EVEL is quite controversial, for it would create
two classes of MP’s – English MP’s with full time access to the Commons and all
stages of the parliamentary process in the Commons, and non-English MP’s who
would effectively be told to stay out of their own parliament on certain days,
even though the legislation and issues debated on those days may indirectly
affect their constituents.

It is also why even though Yes Scotland and
the SNP were campaigning on the idea of Scotland being master of its destiny,
they were also trying to argue for a form of independence that would retain
links with the rest of the UK, but leave it without the ability to shape it, as
the continuing Union would continue to substantially influence Scotland –
regardless of the constitutional arrangements.

This points to the importance of
maintaining the United Kingdom as something that is in Scotland’s best
interests, and maintaining as firm a Union as possible with full and complete
parliamentary representation in Parliament for everybody, rather than trying to
unravel it and creating more grievances along the way.

Indeed, one of the reasons for the merger of England and
Scotland into the UK was to give Scotland access to the much larger English
markets, and this – along with the much wider British Empire – proved to be
highly beneficial to Scotland. But even without the Empire, being part of the
United Kingdom, as Farquharson points out, has been beneficial to Scotland’s
economic prospects more than anything else, and UK as a whole has benefited from
Scottish contributions (in terms of human, social, financial, natural, and instructional capital) that have helped to make it a global leader and significant world
power, which in turn provides benefits to the UK – including Scotland.

Attempting to loosen the UK with well-meaning, but ill
thought out devolution and EVEL threatens to upset these necessary bonds –
political, economic, and social – which keep Britain together. Indeed, one of
the disheartening prospects is that there may never again be a Chancellor of
the Exchequer or Prime Minister from Scotland representing a Scottish
constituency.

On this point, my friend Graeme believes that:

“Nationalism and devolution has not increased Scotland's
power and influence within the Union, it has significantly diminished it. It
has rendered much of Scotland's influence within the wider UK intolerable to
that part of the UK which forms the majority of its population, and has made it
very difficult for it to be [constitutionally] acceptable for any Scottish MP
to occupy any cabinet post other than that of Foreign or Defence Secratary,
because any other cabinet position would make them responsible for policies in
England over which the English have no say over in Scotland, which the English
no longer consider to be either fair or acceptable.”

He further laments that thanks to “poorly handled devolution
and [acquiescence] to nationalist demands” Scotland and Scots, “once a powerful
and disproportionately influential voice within the Union, have rendered
themselves in some respects as bystanders to larger issues within the United
Kingdom” – many of which will continue to affect Scotland.

The result, he
fears, will be that “England and the English will come to dominate the UK far
more than they have ever done” and that this was perhaps the way the
nationalists had planned it, for it certainly would give them “even more
grievance fuel to further their agenda”, and that some Scots “will believe them when they say that
England is unfairly denying Scotland a voice within the UK by freezing them out
of influence at Westminster.” It would make the roar of the Scottish lion
“sound more like a cat’s mewling.”

McMillan attempts to get around this by saying that it would
be rather pompous for English Tories to talk about “speaking for England”, as
if England is a homogenous community when in fact it is not – pointing out that
“the England of the 21st century is a vastly diverse nation, which contains
millions of people – from Liverpool to Portsmouth, from Truro to South Shields
– who are fully as exasperated with the current Westminster establishment, and
its failed politics of austerity, as any Scottish voter.” Her solution is to
use the House of Lords as a chamber that represents the nations of the UK, as
well as the regions within England, which in her view, would meet the
“standards of 21st-century democracy.”

As it is, I have written on how the Lords can be reformed in such a way. Looking back, this probably should have been the way to go in addressing the asymmetries that she refers to, which have also been noted by many pro-Union
politicians such as Gordon Brown. If this had been achieved long ago, it may
have averted the need for devolution, because it would have guaranteed a level
of Scottish representation in the upper house that would have been on par – or
nearly on par – with England, so that Scotland’s voice (or rather voices, since
Scotland is just as diverse as England) could be heard and provide wisdom and
scrutiny to government legislation. Even if a reformed Lords did not have the
absolute ability to block government legislation, it could – with substantial
Scots influence – force the government to think again on its agenda.

Indeed, perhaps another flaw in devolution was that it made changes along the edges of the British constitution without also making changes at the center, and this has left the country with an unbalanced governmental structure that is prone to misunderstandings and grievance-mongering.

Of course, there would still be people making the case for devolution
and decentralization from London. In fact, the idea of revamping the United
Kingdom into a federal union like the United States has taken hold in some
quarters in the wake of the referendum. But even Gordon Brown has remarked that
federalism can only go but so far in a country where 85% of the population
lives in one area, and most forms of federalism still mean having a strong
central government with the ability to levy and collect taxes, and make an
array of laws that directly apply to all people throughout the entire union.

In essence, federalism means that there are some powers exclusively exercised by the federal government, some powers exclusively exercised by the federated governments, and some powers are exercised jointly. For example, in the US and Germany, the setting of income and corporate taxes are a joint responsibility of federal and state governments. The federal governments and legislatures in both countries are quite powerful –
though their power is limited in certain areas.

Indeed, the authority of the British Parliament at
Westminster has already been limited in practice, regardless of the fact that
it possesses ultimate sovereignty across the UK. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh
Assembly, and Northern Irish Assembly are now semi-permanent institutions to
the point where no prime minister or his/her government will dare contemplate
abolishing them.

The issue at hand now is how these institutions, the British
Parliament, and potential institutions in England can fit into a federal
framework for the United Kingdom as a whole. This will require an end to ad hoc
devolution (including the proposal for Full Fiscal Autonomy for Holyrood) as
well as the crude answers contained in the proposals for EVEL. Joyce McMillan
herself acknowledged that the decision to devolve control of setting income tax
rates was “strange and hasty”, for the income tax allows for one of the most
transparent forms of redistribution from wealthier parts of a country to
another, and the concept of pooling and sharing resources throughout the United
Kingdom for the benefit of all was one of the main arguments used for keeping
Scotland as part of the Union.

If the Union is to
survive at this point, there needs to be the establishment of a UK
constitutional convention that will attempt to sort out the issues of British
governance and forge a lasting constitutional settlement that is as “fair” as
possible to everybody. It means looking at the United Kingdom as a whole and having a firm understanding of how it ought to work going forward, which – among other things – means defining the powers of a federal UK Parliament (as Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution does for the US Congress), the limits on the federal parliament (Article 1, Section 9), and the powers and limitations on the federated governments of the nations and regions within the UK (Article 1, Section 10).

It also means defining the values that bring Britain together as a country, and establishing principles upon which the people and their representatives can build on.

This effort will require an enormous amount of good faith, tact,
skill, statesmanship (likely in the face of political party interest), creative
imagination, and a sense of vision and purpose to make such a settlement a
success. It will also require the participation of people from all walks of life in Britain – including ordinary citizens, civic organizations, and faith groups in an expression of British civic participation that may also facilitate bringing people together and forging a sense of a common identity and common ideals for Britain going forward.

The
brute reality is that Scotland and England have been “interfering” in each
others affairs for centuries, and they really can't help it, given the island they share. The Union simply made it official, and in my opinion, it is in everyone’s interest for Britain to remain together, for Britain has so much collective potential, and its people can achieve much more together – not just for themselves, but for the world at large– than they could ever do apart.

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Nearly seven years after her last voyage as an operational
ocean liner, the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 is still one of the most famous vessels
in the world.

Launched by Her Majesty the Queen in 1967, she sailed on her maiden
voyage to New York in 1969 into an uncertain future as ships like her were no
longer the primary means of traveling in the age of air travel. Indeed, the
Cunard Line, her owner gambled almost everything on her to save it from extinction in
the face of this new reality that had seen the transatlantic ocean liner market virtually
collapse in less than a generation since the end of World War II.

Despite the odds against it however, the QE2 – as she quickly and popularly became known – went on the sail the seas for nearly 40 years. With
her revolutionary design, she was able to be flexible as a transatlantic ocean
liner between Southampton and New York in the summer and as a cruise ship in warmer waters (including an annual
world cruise) during the winter months – allowing her to make money virtually
year-around for Cunard and remain commercially viable through much of her
career.

Throughout that illustrious career, she carried many over
2.5 million passengers – from the well-known (including royalty, presidents,
prime ministers, diplomats, and celebrities) to people of modest means who would
only make one passage aboard QE2 in their lifetime. All were treated to
unparalleled and sophisticated luxury aboard a ship that carried the legacy of the great Atlantic liners that had come before her, and she developed a solid
reputation for reliability and comfort – setting a standard against which other
ships were compared.

Along the way, she made 806 transatlantic crossings and
sailed 6 million miles. This included the period during which she served her
country in the Falkland’s War as a troop transport (just as her predecessors
had done in the previous world wars). In addition, she was the longest-serving
liner in Cunard’s history, as well as its longest-serving flagship. On top of
that, the QE2 was the fastest
operating passenger vessel until her retirement.

That retirement came when the QE2 was sold to Dubai World for $100
million and sailed there in November 2008, where she was supposed to be
converted into a floating hotel like the Queen Mary in Long Beach, California.
However, at the time when QE2 was purchased in 2007, the property boom was at
its height, and by the time of her arrival over a year later, the global
economy was on a downward trend, and this seriously affected the QE2’s
prospects in Dubai. Since then, no conversion work has been done on her, and
all long-term plans for use of the ship have fallen through.

Up until two years ago, she was very visible and well-kept
at a berth in Dubai with her engines and internal power systems still running
as if ready to head back out to sea again. In 2009, she was drydocked and her hull was cleaned and given a fresh coat of paint, which raised prospects of sunny days ahead. However, the engines have been since
turned off, and without them, the ship has been left to bake in the desert sun of the Middle East – with
mold and mildew now making themselves present. Worse, she has been placed into
a rather nondescript area with tankers and cargo ships, and the latest photos
show her looking derelict and forlorn – as if she is being deliberately
left to rot. Other photos, including those with workers roasting pigs near the
swimming pools, have only confirmed the languishing state in which the former flagship of the British merchant fleet finds
herself.

Rob Lightbody, the founder The QE2 Story – a website
dedicated to preserving the memory of the great vessel and to raising awareness
to save it – told TheScotsman: “Nothing has happened to it in the last two and
a half years. There’s no power. There’s no air. She’s filthy.”

Dubai meanwhile have been frustratingly silent on the fate
of this much-beloved ship. Having promised to be faithful stewards of the QE2
from the outset – with an ambitious plan for her going forward – they have all
but signaled that they are no longer interested in what was once supposed to be
the crown jewel of their Palm Jumeriah development. This lack of interest is
only ripe for them to want to be rid of what has now become a liability, and by
any means if necessary, which obviously means the scrapyard.

However, there are those who are adamant on not allowing
this to happen, and have been working to get the QE2 returned home to the
United Kingdom, where she undoubtedly belongs. But then, where should she go?

With regard to suitable locations in the UK for QE2 to enjoy
her retirement, I believe Greencock, Southampton, Liverpool, and London should
be considered in that order.

Why Greenock at the top? Well, the QE2 was built on the
River Clyde – specifically at the John Brown shipyard in Clydebank (just to the
west of Glasgow), where many other Cunarders were also built, and the wharf
where those great liners were fitted out is still there. This would make it a
suitable location, were it not for the Erskine Bridge that was built downriver
from Clydebank in 1971 after the QE2 had been constructed. It has a clearance
of 148 feet, which is not high enough for the QE2 – 171 feet tall from the
water line – to sail under, unless her iconic funnel and mast where removed and
replaced upon her arrival at the old Brown’s yard.

Barring that unlikely scenario, Greenock at the mouth of the
Clyde would be the next best option. It was where the QE2 was drydocked for the
final stages of her construction and fitting out, and she visited the area in
2007 for the 40th anniversary of her launch and in 2008 during her
farewell tour of the UK before sailing off to Dubai.

In addition, Stephen McCabe, the council leader of Inverclyde
(which contains Greencock) pointed out the reception received by the RMS Queen Mary 2 – Cunard’s current flagship and now the only operating ocean liner in
the world – when she visited the area along the lower Clyde a few weeks ago to
celebrate Cunard’s 175th anniversary. Even though she was not Clyde-built
like her predecessors – starting with the first Cunarder Britannia – in many
ways, there was a spiritual connection because of the generations of Cunarders
that have been built there.

Many other vessels have been built along the Clyde as well,
and the area has also been a major port of entry for maritime trade – so much
so, that at one point, Glasgow was considered the second city of the British
Empire. During World War II, the Clyde also played host as a strategic landing
point for hundreds of thousands of American and Canadian servicemen who were to
take part in the D-Day invasion of Nazi-occupied continental Europe. Many of
those people sailed across the Atlantic courtesy of the Clyde-built steamers
Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, each of whom were converted to carry over
15,000 people at a time, and for their extraordinary contribution to the war effort, they were
commended by Prime Minister Winston Churchill for shortening the war by a year
or more.

Queen Mary arriving in New York carrying thousands of serviceman home following the end of World War II. To this day, she retains the record for the most souls ever carried aboard a single vessel: 16,683 (including crew) on a crossing from New York to Greenock in July 1943.(Credit: Public Domain)

With this heritage in mind, Councillor McCabe said to The Telegraph that “it is clear that the QE2 could be a major draw for visitors to
Inverclyde and Scotland. It could also boost the promotion of the Clyde and
Inverclyde’s proud maritime history to a national and, potentially,
international audience.”

The next logical location for the great liner would be
Southampton, her home port for 40 years. This city was proud of having the ship
carry its name around the world to various locations – providing it with an exposure
that it otherwise might not have had. The people living there treated the QE2
as a semi-permanent landmark – a point of local pride that had a global reach,
and they gave the vessel a fitting send-off in 2008 when she departed for the
last time. For them, the loss of the QE2 was more than a loss of a ship; it was
like the loss of a long-time neighbor and friend – a void left unfilled.

Southampton is still a major working port, with ships –
including modern cruise liners, ferries, and cargo vessels – arriving and
departing every day. It is also ancient, having hosted many ships throughout
its history, including greatest ocean liners in the world – such as the Queen
Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Aquitania, and Olympic. The city is particularly known
for its connection to the Titanic, since it was the port from which the doomed
White Star liner sailed on its maiden and only voyage in 1912.

RMS Titanic casting off from Southampton on April 10, 1912.

With this rich maritime heritage, Southampton is a suitable
location for a vessel that will do more than its bit to celebrate that heritage
and to further enhance it.

Liverpool meanwhile, does not have the substantial links to the QE2 as
the River Clyde or Southampton. Liverpool was not its home port, and nor was it
the place of its birth. However, Liverpool is in many ways, the QE2’s spiritual
home – being the long-time base of operations for the Cunard Line, and it was
in Liverpool where the QE2 was conceived and designed. Today, the Cunard Building still
stands alongside the Liver Building and Port of Liverpool Building at Pier Head
along the River Mersey. These buildings – collectively known as the Three Graces
– dominate the Liverpool skyline and stand as a testimate to Liverpool’s own
heritage as a significant maritime and trading port.

Like Southampton, Liverpool was also connected to maritime tragedy
– being the port where the Cunarder Lusitania was destined to arrive just over a century ago on May 7,
1915, but was torpedoed by a German U-boat that morning and sank off the coast
of Ireland during World War I.

In addition to its association with the Cunard Line,
Liverpool also hosted the headquarters of other shipping companies, most
notably Cunard’s arch-rival, the White Star Line, whose old offices still stand
at 30 James Street. As such, Liverpool was also the port of registry (the
official home port) of the Titanic, as well as that of many other ships from
Cunard and White Star – although both companies had moved their main terminus
to Southampton by the 1920’s.

By the time QE2 was built, the city was not even
included as the official home port with “Liverpool” written across the stern
(rear) of the ship, for Southampton had taken precedence when Cunard moved its headquarters there. Nevertheless, Cunard
did recognize their shared heritage with the city by sending her there nine
times over the course of her 40 year career. Most recently, the company’s
latest edition of its fleet – the Queen Mary 2, Queen Victoria, and Queen
Elizabeth – were all in Liverpool to celebrate its 175th anniversary
from the time when Canadian-born entrepreneur Samuel Cunard founded it.

With these facts in mind, it is clear to see why the first
three cities I have mentioned should have a clear shot at being the new home of
the QE2. In contrast, London has virtually no connection to the QE2 – not even a one-off visit from the ship. There is nothing
against London in my bones, but it simply does not have the same status with
regard to the QE2 as Greenock, Southampton, and Liverpool – not even close to
it, but it is included in the conversation in part because of its status as
Britain’s capital city, as well as a world city that is a prime tourist
destination.

In addition, QE2 London – an organization that is working to
get the QE2 permanently berthed along the Thames – have been promoting their
proposals since 2012, which are already well-developed and involve placing the
vessel near the O2 Arena on the east side of the city. Its project manager is
John Chillingworth, a former chief engineer with Cunard who worked aboard QE2
for 20 years. He was also the general manager tasked with overseeing the
conversion of the ship in Dubai before those plans were shelved, and has
estimated that £100million would be needed to purchase the ship, return it
home, and transform her into a 530-room hotel and entertainment center.

A mock-up of the QE2 berthed across from the O2 Arena along the Thames in London.(Credit: QE2 London)

Chillingworth is also open to the idea of bringing the ship to Liverpool
or Clydeside – stating that feasibility studies have shown that all of them
could house the vessel with a potential return on investment towards the end of
10 years.

Given the dire circumstances however, it may be unproductive
to be too picky on where the Queen Elizabeth 2 ought to be located. Any of the
places mentioned, including London, are infinitely better than where she is
right now – in a location for which she was not designed for long periods of
time, where her needs and maintenance are neglected by people who were looking
to make a quick buck, and are now probably all too happy to get rid of her by
any means necessary.

In contrast, at any location within the United Kingdom, she
will be welcomed back into the country where she was built, where was
home-ported, and whose flag she flew. She will be treasured and cherished by people
who care about her and will care for her, and I’m sure there may even be some
people who will gladly volunteer to help bring back the ship to her prime
condition.

Some people will say that as unfortunate as it may be, it is
probably time to let the great liner go and be scrapped. After all they say –
with justification – that we cannot expect to save all the ocean liners that
have ever been built, and the brute reality is that when a ship reaches the end
of its intended use of sailing on the high seas, its only realistic destination
is the scrap yard. As the last captain of the Queen Mary said upon the great
liner departing New York for the last time in 1967: “Ships, like [human beings], have a
time limit, and they day must come when we go.”

However, the Queen Elizabeth 2 is different, and ought to be
an exception to the rule. For 40 years, she sailed across the waves
representing the best of Britain to the world with a standard of luxury,
comfort, style, and class that made her stand out amongst her contemporaries.
Many a passenger has said that upon boarding the QE2, they knew what to expect
from such an illustrious vessel and were always impressed, especially by the
service rendered aboard – whether it was on a transatlantic crossing or a
cruise in tropical areas. When people saw the QE2 – as I did in New York
several times – they did not have to ask name of the ship, for she was that distinctive
from the rest of the pack.

RMS Queen Mary 2 in Southampton. She is a fabulous liner in her own right and carries on the traditions of her predecessors, but unlike them, does not carry the distinction of being British-built.(Credit: Barry Skeates via Flickrcc)

The result is that she one of Britain’s best-known exports
to the world. More fundamentally, as
John Chillingworth has pointed out, not only is she the “best known ship in
the world and an important part of British maritime history”, but she is also
the last British-built passenger liner, and that alone makes her special and
worth saving. It is why a location along the Clyde is preferable, for while she
is a British national treasure, she was built in Scotland, and is also the
Pride of the Clyde – the last of a long line of ocean liners built on the
river, and the embodiment of generations of shipbuilding heritage.

Chillingworth has said that if Scots can but pressure on
Dubai and raise funding for an organization similar to his in London, he “would
welcome the opportunity to assist them as our ultimate aim is to save the ship
and provide a viable future for her.”

Whichever way it goes for the QE2 in the UK, it is likely
that help from the government – financially and otherwise – will be needed.

Council leader Stephen McCabe of Inverclyde has said: “Bringing
the QE2 home is a herculean task, one that requires national support in
Scotland and perhaps across the UK, if it has any chance of happening.”
Meanwhile, Stuart McMillan, an MSP for the West of Scotland region, said that
several agencies and governing institutions would have to work together,
including the “Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, Inverclyde Council,
and Clydeport”, and like McCabe, he is looking to the potential for a boost in
tourism and economic development that would “generate more jobs for the area
and restore a key part of Scotland’s maritime heritage to Inverclyde.”

RMS Queen Elizabeth - the largest passenger liner built in the United Kingdom.(Credit: Public Domain)

In addition to writing to appropriate people and public bodies in
Britain, Councillor McCabe has also said that Inverclyde intends to ask Dubai for an assessment on the situation, where the government, according to
Chillingworth, have “advised that they are considering their options.”

As a person who has a passion for the great ocean liners, it
is enormously heartbreaking to see what is happening to the QE2, and it would
be even more depressing to see her taken away to a beach in Asia to be ignominiously
scrapped as the last of her kind.

In America, we have our own iconic vessel, the SS United
States, which like the QE2 was the national flagship and a source of national
pride. The “Big U” – as she became known – became the fastest passenger ship ever
built when she crossed the Atlantic in just over three days on her maiden
voyage in 1952 and beat the Queen Mary’s best time by 10 hours. However like
many other vessels, the Big U fell victim to the advent of even faster air
travel, and she was withdrawn from service in November 1969. Since then, she
has passed through several owners – all of them with plans to resuscitate the
ship which have fallen though, and now she is tied up along the Delaware River
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and like the QE2, is facing uncertain future.

Both Britain and America have rich seafaring traditions
which ought to be celebrated and cherished. This is true for Britain in
particular because of it being an island nation dependent on overseas trade throughout
the world.

For this reason, it ought to be imperative that both ships
be saved. In the QE2’s case, there needs to be cooperation between the UK
Government, private entities, individuals, and the governing institutions and agencies of
the areas that are willing to berth the ship – whether it be in Greenock,
Southampton, Liverpool, or London. Indeed, if it is possible, perhaps all of the
places that had a connection to the QE2 ought to have a stake in the ship,
regardless of where she ends up in the UK. Going further, she can be a great
national project for the UK in terms of restoring her to her former glory and
making her both a symbol of what Britain was able to go at one time, and a
symbol of what it can do going forward.

Time is running out for the QE2, and there is the real
possibility that she will be scrapped, and if that were to happen, I cannot help but to believe that the UK will have lost a part of itself in the process. Bringing her back will not be easy, and
will require the cooperation and good faith of many people and organizations. But
with help from all stakeholders and the wider public, she – a great British
icon, the pride of the Clyde built in Scotland – can be returned home to a more
happy and glorious future.